You know you're in a province where people love politics, when you see political advertising and it's not even an election year.
For those people who get American channels, the level of American political ads is getting just a bit much - and these people are not afraid of negative advertising like people seem to be here in Canada. I can hardly wait for all those elections to be over already.
Meanwhile, what's with all the ads here when the next provincial election isn't until 2011? There are ads from the Sask Party questioning whether Dwain Lingenfelter is the leader we want, and then there are the unions getting into the fray by talking about "The Saskatchewan Way."
It's interesting they bring up the "Saskatchewan Way"; one presumes they are hearkening to Saskatchewanians to remember with misty eyes "the way things used to be".
It's also rather irritating they keep harping on issues that aren't actually issues.
For example, most recently I saw an ad about highways; they're actually claiming that the care of our roads and highway will be privatized, even though no one has ever said such a thing or has ever made any suggestion saying as much.
The "Saskatchewan Way", supposedly then, is to retain the care of our roads and highways under the government, the way it always has been.
As teens may be heard to say on occasion: "Well, duh." (Well, some teens )
I don't know what the point of trying to turn a non-issue into an issue is, except to make the general populace start believing that the Wall administration is going to privatize everything - which they're not. This, folks, is what is known as a "scare tactic."
In regard to another union issue, the Sask. Court of Appeals recently ruled that certification of the union can proceed at Wal-Mart; the instant reaction from almost everybody I've talked to voiced the fear that Weyburn's store will therefore be closed.
The union is claiming victory in this issue - but why? Is the closure of a community's major source of retail goods a positive thing?
What I take issue with in regards to the court ruling, is that they are not allowing the current employees to have a vote, and I don't hear the unions supporting this most basic democratic right that any employee should be entitled to have. How about supporting that right? Because the vast majority of employees there now have not indicated they want to be represented by a union. It's just my opinion, but I think that is wrong.
